Time To Start Again On 'Six Strikes' And Let Internet Users Have A Seat At The Table

from the all-the-stake-holders dept

One of our key concerns with the so-called "voluntary" six strikes agreement set up between the ISPs and the content companies (with a major shove from the White House) was the fact that there was no one representing the users at the table. As much as the White House has insisted that the entertainment industry alone represents "all the stakeholders," the simple fact is that copyright law is supposed to benefit the public, not the legacy industry gatekeepers.

And while it may have been the way things were done around copyright in the past, the public's reaction to SOPA should have changed that equation. No longer should decisions around copyright law that effect the public internet users be made without their input. And, yet, that's exactly what happened with the six strikes agreement. Even if the new Center for Copyright Infringement (CCI), which has been set up to run the new six strikes program, has appointed some consumer rights advocates to its powerless "advisory" board, shouldn't we go back to the drawing board and have a true, open discussion about these things that includes the users of the internet? After all, aren't they the true stakeholders here?

The folks over at the EFF are calling for a complete "reset" on the agreement, and saying that it's time to do it correctly: with internet users at the table, rather than kept out of the room. The statement notes that the advisory board is not the same as including internet users in the process:

An advisory board is just that: a group of advisors, not decisionmakers. No matter how you slice it, subscribers don't have a seat at the table now any more than they did in the earlier negotiations.

Instead, they point out that the only way this is going to be done in a way that's fair and that actually serves the true purpose of copyright law is to start again, and have the discussion done in public where the public has a true say in what happens:

So here's an idea: press reset. This collaboration has been years in the making, with the ISPs under heavy pressure from the content industries and government officials. It may be that they made the best deal they could under the circumstances, but since then the world has changed. If the ISPs decided to take this back to drawing board, we think their customers will stand with them, loudly and publicly -- but only if they also insist that their customers have voice in the process.

Indeed. This may have seemed like a crazy idea pre-SOPA blackout, but since then, the public is aware and energized on this issue -- and they want to participate in the conversation. The number one point we've heard over and over again since the January 18th blackouts is about how the public can get involved in a positive agenda around copyright. Here's a key opportunity. The big ISPs who signed on to this six strikes deal should call for a brand new discussion, one that is not done in a backroom, but is done in public, where the public can take part.

I disagree with a reset. I'm all poised to file a class action lawsuit against my ISP because there's no way they can distinguish between infringement and legitimate data transfers, and their only stake in all this is to start earning $35 residuals from those who have to fight against a corrupt system.

Good luck filing a class action lawsuit Mesonoxian Eve, the Supreme Court basically outlawed them if your ISP has a clause in the contract you sign banning class action lawsuits against them, which your ISP probably had hidden in the contract you signed.

Which means the big power players with lots of money continue to trample over the rights of us, the people.

I'll keep saying it: The public is represented -- it's called the government.

STOP voting down party lines. STOP voting for people you feel don't represent your interests. START getting involved with your elected officials -- especially at the local level. It all starts here.

The second Obama got elected and started appointing industry lawyers to the Justice Department, all of this (SOAP, 6-strikes, etc) was 100% inevitable.

Note, I actually like Obama as president, except for his Hollywood butt kissing ways and his lies on drug criminalization and it's enough where I would gladly not vote for him again to help prove a point. Of course, the republican's really hate helping by putting up candidates that bat-crap looney.

Except that the biggest ISP...

...is a cable company that owns NBC Universal, so it has no qualms with going along with this. Most ISPs -- including Time Warner Cable, the horrible company I'm stuck giving my money to right now -- are huge corporations that couldn't care less about their customers or proper customer service. They're probably getting enough cash from Hollywood that the loss of their customer bases hasn't even crossed their minds. This can't possibly end well for anyone.

Re:

You are right. Our elected officials are supposed to represent us. Sadly, due to the natural course of all uncontested governments, that has changed. Our elected officials now only represent those that get them elected. However, that is not those that actually voted for them, it is those organizations that paid them enough money to sway the minds of those that are easily swayed.

Not too small.

Only too easily distracted by the shiny to get organized over this. Most people just want to be entertained, and the crap the movie biz dishes out is, shockingly, still mostly good enough for them. If people stopped giving the industry money, things would change, but we haven't convinced enough people to do that yet.

1) the ISPs haven't got the balls to stand up to the entertainment industries
2) makes no difference who is on the 'Advisory Board', they will be ignored
3) those on the Advisory Board will gradually be replaced, quicker if they speak out against the entertainment industries
4) no one else is penalised under this so called 'deal' between ISPs and entertainment industries
5) no one should have to pay to go through a false accusation case
6)if accused falsely, recriminations should be taken against the accuser and compensation paid to the accused.
7)no one should have to prove innocence. the accuser should have absolute proof of guilt, not just assumptions
8) no one should be paying for a service whereby the service provider can then assist another company to take legal action against a customer.

Re:

Really the best way to deal with that is every time there should be a class action lawsuit each individual should just file separately. Can you imagine the cost of having to deal with 10,000 lawsuits? It would gum up the system so bad they will be crying for mercy and go back to allowing class actions.

This article makes a ludicrous assumption

There is no way to make this "Six Strikes" nonsense fair -- it is inherently unfair... as well as insulting, counterproductive, and pointless for everyone involved.

Bring the public to the table? This sounds like the classic cliche about when two lions and a lamb sit down together to agree on what's for dinner. The very fact of this conspiratorial system damages the public.

Re:

you can say it all you want, but for the most part that boils down to not voting.

Sure, i'm going to piss my presidential vote away on gary johnson, OR rp if he goes independant. And then romney will get elected anyway. as for local and state, there's usually not even a non party candidate, assuming they aren't running unopposed.
That's even if your willing to believe the counts not rigged, which after watching the GOP primaries i'm not.

My first criteria for candidates is "doesn't consider me and everyone i know to be a criminal" and usually, that's not even an option when you're talking about tech law, or the Drug war.

FTC action needed here

This should be reported as collusion to the FTC and potentially a price fixing agreement. Reduction of services with true competition should create competitors offering alternatives in an open capitalistic environment. If it was truely a market based open competition service- alternatives should be available in all areas to offset anti-consumer behavoirs. Monopolies dictating use of services sounds like a direct MAFIAA interation with the public. Billions of dollars of public funds were used to create the Internet and additionally there were public offerings of land and tax incentives granted in the original infrastructure construction to lay lines.

Why do so few have control? We should live in a world with hundreds of ISP competitors- instead we get this type of anti-consumer activity. The FTC and government needs to get off its lazy ass and actually break up monopolistic behavoirs and allow the public to build new dymanic services off the infrastructure existing due to public and government contributions. This situation is maddening and sad.

Perhaps someone will do us a favor with botnets

It is, of course, a trivial exercise to use botnets to hit the "six strikes" limit very quickly from tens of millions of addresses. Will ISPs be willing to disconnect a million customers? 5 million? 10 million?

If yes, then they will quickly find themselves losing a LOT of revenue.

if no, then they're not going to be able to disconnect anyone, because of course from their observation points, botnet-driven infringement is absolutely indistinguishable from user-driven infringement.

Re: FTC action needed here

Re:

Don't forget Obama's lies about transparency too. Making campaign promises to get votes is fine, but don't expect any of your supporters to vote for you again next time, not when you've royally screwed them over the way that you have. People who didn't vote for you last time probably won't this time either, and those who did vote based on your failed promises won't be voting for you either most likely. Good luck staying president with that being the case. You only have yourself to blame, Mr. President. Goodbye and good riddance.

The fact that government officials are voted in to their respective offices by the people, people whom must absolutely be viewed as the governments employers, is a good system when truly democratic. However one thing that has always irked me about our system stems from the way they act after they've won. It's as if they feel the very act of winning is license to do whatever the hell they want without consequences, much like famous celebrities and those with deep pockets tend to act. I find it unimaginably frustrating when these officials, whom are supposed to be both protecting and representing the interests of all citizens, even the lowliest of the low, panders to corporations and takes handouts from them. They call these contributions just like the ancient Romans did, but the truth is these are really just bribes. How can this not be seen as anything other than corrupt? Corporations are not people! Please, for the love of all that is right and good in the world, stop treating them as such and putting their desires above the well-being of everyone else!

Hopefully we will find a way to force things to change some day so they're back to being the way government is supposed to be, the way our founding fathers envisioned it. You can tell they fully understood the danger big business represented to freedom and democracy when reading famous statements by them, quotes meant to be a clear warning for future generations. Until then we need to fight them with everything we've got and it clearly starts with ending corruption permanently. Our future and the future of our children depend greatly on this. It's also important that those SERVING in a governmental capacity remember one absolute truth as old as time itself, being that no civilization lasts forever. Without exception, every single one of them collapses eventually at some point. The beginning of the end always starts the same way too, by passing laws that unfairly and unjustly turn your fellow man into criminals, laws motivated by greed and a desire for more wealth, power, and control.

Now, just as back then, you will be your own undoing. Maybe not now, maybe not even soon, but eventually and inevitably. How do you want history and your direct descendants to remember you? Better start thinking long and hard about it because the end of your free ride is coming. I guarantee it.

"The folks over at the EFF are calling for a complete "reset" on the agreement"

EFF wants the six strikes to be about 600 strikes, and to have almost every use not be a strike. They have gone from defenders of the law to a bunch of one sided lobbyists. Google certainly appears to be getting their money's worth.

If the ISPs decided to take this back to drawing board, we think their customers will stand with them, loudly and publicly -- but only if they also insist that their customers have voice in the process.

Why do you think the ISP's were silent during the SOPA debate? The ISP's objections to this arrangement was almost exclusively over who paid for what- not any particular aversion to the six strikes process. Increasingly, the ISP's realize that they will be profiting from distributing content and they will protect that revenue stream. The fact is that the ISP's are moving ever closer to the content industry.

Re: Re:

I think you get your money back if the allegation is proven meritless.

This is irrelevant. You still have to pony up the cash to defend yourself. No cash, no meaningful defense. Whether you get it back in the end or not doesn't matter if you don't have it to begin with. This acts as a bar keeping people from going to court even when they'd clearly win.

WHo would you say is the accuser?

The entity that instigated the action.

Why? People are accused and have to prove innocence in courts all the time.

Strictly speaking, no, they don't. There is a legal presumption of innocence, and the accuser must prove guilt. The accused doesn't have to prove innocence.

As a practical matter, it's true that often the best defense is to prove innocence, so this is done. However, the reason there is a presumption of innocence is because it's quite hard to prove a negative. Even the most innocent person in the world can easily find it impossible to prove they're innocent.

Re:

^THIS!

You have it exactly right.

Those internet users who don't infringe, don't fileshare copyright material, don't break the law, well, they won't care. 6 strikes, 500 strikes, for them it doesn't matter because they aren't going to see any strikes. It's business as usual.

The ones who want to be at the table are the ones already breaking the law. We don't let speeders re-write the traffic laws, we don't let cocaine dealers change the rules for their arrest, and we don't let fraudsters change the securities laws to get themselves off. The people who want to be at the table want to be there because they know they are entirely fucked under any system that makes them responsible for their own actions.

It's misleading as heck to say "let's invite the criminals in to tell us how to decide to punish them" because you know the answer will always be "don't do it".

Re: Re:

Until one of their kids downloads something without their knowledge. Or their friends do. Or their neighbors do while using their unsecured WiFi. Or a malicious hacker does, while spoofing their IP address.

Then they get disconnected, even though they were a law-abiding citizen in every perfect, wonderful way that you describe.

There is no way to distinguish between legitimate downloads and infringing ones. It's all just bits on the network.

Re:

They say anything to me and I also intend to sue Slime Warner for the highest dollar figure I can possibly go for.
I am not a Lawyer so my statement could just be BS in itself.Only time will tell.And if that time comes I have 3 good friends up here who are all Lawyers.These guys will know the answer.

Re: Re:

And of course branding me as a thief (Pirate) could mean just sueing these guys for defaming my name.Slime Warner look out.you will have to physically prove I am a thief if you defame me or at least I think that is how it goes.

Re: Re: Re:

"I think you get your money back if the allegation is proven meritless."

This is irrelevant. You still have to pony up the cash to defend yourself. No cash, no meaningful defense. Whether you get it back in the end or not doesn't matter if you don't have it to begin with. This acts as a bar keeping people from going to court even when they'd clearly win.

So you're suggesting that someone who has an internet account doesn't have $35? Doubtful, but I'll bet that there are waiver provisions. And you don't go to "court". Maybe you should read up a little rather than take everything MAsnick spews as Gospel.

"Who would you say is the accuser?"

The entity that instigated the action.

Let me guess- you don't even understand how it works, do you?

"Why? People are accused and have to prove innocence in courts all the time."

Strictly speaking, no, they don't. There is a legal presumption of innocence, and the accuser must prove guilt. The accused doesn't have to prove innocence.

A strike is like a traffic citation. If you did it, deal with the consequences. If you didn't, you're entitled to your day in court. I'm baffled as to why you don't understand this.

As a practical matter, it's true that often the best defense is to prove innocence, so this is done. However, the reason there is a presumption of innocence is because it's quite hard to prove a negative. Even the most innocent person in the world can easily find it impossible to prove they're innocent.

How about Six Strikes for False Takedowns?

How about after you falsely take down internet content six times, you lose all ability to ever take down any other internet content. (Not to mention loss of credibility and looking like an idiot.)

In addition, each false take down of someone else's content should have statutory damages.

These things should work both ways. No more taking down someone's video of their child, or someone's nature video. If you can't determine what to take down, then you shouldn't be doing it. If you can't determine whether something is infringing, then you can't require anyone else to make that same determination.

Re: This article makes a ludicrous assumption

Re:

STOP voting for people you feel don't represent your interests.

Looks like that's already happening. With only slightly over 1/2 the voters turning out to choose your president and less than 1/2 of those picking the winner and non-presidential elections having typically UNDER 1/2 the voters turn out to vote that's hardly a ringing endorsement of the political process is it?

Looks to me like people are already dissilusioned with politicians and already not voting for people thatr don't represent their views..... so what happens next?

Re: Re:

It is however done under duress. Where do you draw the line on prior restraint? When the government threatens to pass laws, shut down your or cause issues for your business, or put you in jail if you do not comply, are these not prior restraint?

As much as the White House has insisted that the entertainment industry alone represents "all the stakeholders," the simple fact is that copyright law is supposed to benefit the public, not the legacy industry gatekeepers.

Unfortunately, the entertainment industry doesn't see it that way. They see copyright law as being exclusively for their benefit and they're the ones calling the shots with the government.

And while it may have been the way things were done around copyright in the past, the public's reaction to SOPA should have changed that equation.

The entertainment industry views the SOPA protests as the online equivalent of a bunch of environmentalists chaining themselves to trees to stop a logging operation. In their opinion, the protesters need to be dragged off and arrested so that 'progress' can continue.

Even if the new Center for Copyright Infringement (CCI), which has been set up to run the new six strikes program, has appointed some consumer rights advocates to its powerless "advisory" board, shouldn't we go back to the drawing board and have a true, open discussion about these things that includes the users of the internet? After all, aren't they the true stakeholders here?

In today's world, the word "stakeholder" means someone with huge amounts of money. Any other definition is just laughed at by the corporations and the government.

Instead, they point out that the only way this is going to be done in a way that's fair and that actually serves the true purpose of copyright law is to start again, and have the discussion done in public where the public has a true say in what happens:

In the opinion of the corporations and the government, the only thing that would serve the "true purpose of copyright law" is to have the ability to institute a lifetime internet ban and a multi-million dollar fine at the first accusation of copyright infringement, with a second accusation warranting a life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole.

Re:

The industry is too big to go against and the public are too small to matter.

I must respectfully disagree. Historically, this statement has been true; individuals acting alone were too small to matter. However, in the past few years we've seen a fundamental change in the way the internet is being used - what was once a passive source of entertainment and commerce has morphed into a means of discussion, a global forum where we find we are not alone. The internet is no longer the sole province of kids and sun-starved neckbeards but astonishingly rational, educated people from all corners of the earth. People who can listen to the extremists on both sides of an issue and draw their own conclusions.

And these people have also found their voices, that together, enough people questioning a government policy or a corporate decision can change it. The shelving of the SOPA/PIPA legislation and the reversal of Bank of America's surcharges on ATM usage are just two examples.

The spokespeople and lawyers for the RIAA/MPAA are people whose job is to take an extremist position, who are used to using legal intimidation and other tactics to promote their agenda. It works, when the intimidated are few.

We, the common, ordinary users of the internet, are many. And for the most part, we know bullshit when we hear it. And we've learned that pushback works.

Re: Re: How about Six Strikes for False Takedowns?

Re: Re:

I can see a lot of people trying to sue Slim Warner as you call them for defaming your name. Basically with this six strikes things if I reading things correctly sounds like if download anything they'll terminate your connection (as in if you have a download that's 20GB or higher...legit or otherwise bye bye connection). That being the case, your not gonna be the only one trying to sue them....

"the simple fact is that copyright law is supposed to benefit the public, not the legacy industry gatekeepers."

Mike please explain to your audience how copyright law benefits the public. Please explain that copyright law was enacted to benefit the content industry so that they would continue to produce content. Please explain to them that it was enacted to provide punishment for individuals or orgainizations which stole content (books originally). Please explain to them that the benefit to the public that is to be gained through copyright is the continued stream of new content.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I've never understood this line of reasoning. So the Bill of Rights technically only applies to the US Government. Why does that make it unreasonable for people to expect other powerful entities to similarly restrain themselves?

Re:

No, the government is not our representation in this matter. This is between private entities, and the government isn't even on the board. Even if they were, when the government works against their people, then your words ring entirely too hollow.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I've never understood this line of reasoning. So the Bill of Rights technically only applies to the US Government. Why does that make it unreasonable for people to expect other powerful entities to similarly restrain themselves?

I don't know why. If you were the EFF, wouldn't you want to get rid of an employee who constantly made speeches to co-workers advocating stronger copyright protection laws? What about someone who e-mails around racist jokes to office colleagues? Both are protected speech. How about a Planned Parenthood worker who distributes antiabortion flyers complete with graphic pictures of aborted fetuses at lunchtime? Should the Boy Scouts tolerate a scoutmaster that's a member of NAMBLA?

"Both are protected speech. How about a Planned Parenthood worker who distributes antiabortion flyers complete with graphic pictures of aborted fetuses at lunchtime?"

Again, that directly opposes the goals of the organization. Does the IRS tolerate people that spend their spare time helping people evade taxes? If so, it's the governmental restrictions that are ridiculous, not the actions of the private organization.

"Should the Boy Scouts tolerate a scoutmaster that's a member of NAMBLA?"

What the guy faps to is his own business. If he can't be trusted to keep it to that, then that presents a clear threat to the kids and it would be irresponsible to let him keep his job. This isn't inconsistent with governmental policy either. It can't fire Muslims just for praying to a different thing, but it isn't expected to employ known members of Al Qaeda.

If you want to make a point, find examples where the government wouldn't be able to act in an equivalent situation.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"A strike is like a traffic citation. If you did it, deal with the consequences. If you didn't, you're entitled to your day in court. I'm baffled as to why you don't understand this."

I'm genuinely happy for you that you earn enough money to so casually dismiss going to court as anything more than a mild inconvenience. In fact it seems you're so rich that you're actually baffled that someone wouldn't just go running off to court to clear their name.

Unfortunately for a lot of people going to court would cause a serious financial hardship that would deter them from even trying no matter how innocent they are. The court system may be legally available to all, but the reality is that for a lot of people it's not.

BTW, don't take my accusations of wealth too personally. I'm merely making the point that simply being entitled to go to court is not much use to a lot of people.

Support Independents

I agree with "Not an Electronic Rodent", stop voting down party lines. The constitutions says nothing about political parties in order to run our government. So why do we hand over election after election to their money power style of politics. Get involved! Get to know and support local candidates, and guess what, there are actual Independent and Third Party candidates for state and national office. Get to know those folks, support those folks, and get your friends, families, and complete strangers who feel like you do to support those folks. That is the ONLY thing that will change our country for the better. Check out our growing list of Independent Candidates at http://list.indencan.org Politics and politicians are not going away, so it really comes down to who is best suited to support your values! It's your future, and you should choose more capable folks to lead it.